Concept
salience
How far an issue, person or attribute stands out on an agenda; that is, its perceived importance. In agenda-setting this is what is transferred from the media to the public.
Salience is how far an issue, person or attribute stands out on an agenda; that is, its perceived importance. It is what is “transferred” in agenda-setting theory: the salience the media give to issues turns into salience in the public’s eyes. McCombs and Shaw’s 1972 article puts this as the salience of attitudes: the media may not change the direction and intensity of attitudes much, but they influence which attitudes stand out.
Salience can be measured: in the media by space, airtime, position and repetition; among the public by survey ranking. McCombs’s 1976 review distinguishes three readings of salience: awareness (is the issue there or not), salience (the distinction between high and low importance) and priorities (the full ranking). The number of issues a person can hold at the top at the same time is limited; McCombs puts this at around five to seven issues.
Salience ties together the “what” and the “how” sides of agenda-setting: the salience of the issue makes up the first level, and the salience of the issue’s attributes the second level (second-level agenda-setting).
Example
In Chapel Hill, an issue’s salience in the media (its share of major news items) moved together with its salience in voters’ eyes (how many people considered the issue important).